Human Right, as Universal? or The Nation State as the Universal?

Many assert that human rights are the ulitmate universal. While I have no doubt that American liberties are what I value, is this what everyone else values as an ultimate? It seems that human rights has been a useful means to manipulate the American public to undermine public policy in our own nation, to benefit those that are not as tolerant! Are there universals that can be accepted by everyone? This is a question about what is 'human": one's cultural values, or the moral order that should rule all interests??? One is based on personal conscience and/or values", the other is based on "law". One values culture, and the individual, while the other values the nation state. What is really Sovereign, one's conscience, as to " values", or law? Is moral order more important than diversity? Are one's duties more important than one's choices? Or is choice to be limited by the State, such that we become militaristic/deterministic in our culture?

American society has been an open society, as to choices about values. Those that want to regulate human behavior might be seeking somethng other than liberty of conscience as to one's personal choices about values. These want to control and conform, not allow tolerance toward difference and diversity of interests.

Our society needs "shape", but not at the costs of liberty, otherwise, those that have intolerant philosophies might just use them to manipulate to conform our nation to their own designs! And all America looses! And citizens will be clones, of the State, whether relgious or political.

Moral Order

Another comment on another blog got me thinking this morning. The comment was in the context of education. The comment stated, that some teachers are more geared toward order while others are geared toward content. I agree. And I hope I can express all the thoughts congealing in my mind concerning the issue of order and content.

Moral order has been understood as "government". Government is about maintaining the sturctures in society. But, when order/government is abolutized, then, there is little room for liberty or choice, as to valuei. This is a authoritarian government. It is the Christian view of Moral Order under "God".

Scriptures paint a picture of what happens to those that subvert authority. These are lawless persons, that are killed, or punished like Moses' siblings, or the grumblers in the desert. God is the absolute authority. There is no resistance to his will, as he is perfect and we must submit to him. Othewise, we are rebellious, and call for God's judgment!

Such are the view of the Westboro Baptist Church's view. They represent his repulsion over the "gay community" and the judgment, that is deserved by standing at the funeral and yelling at the parents.

Fortunatly, for all of us, our govenrment allows for freedom of speech to such as these, because we all can have freedom of speech. Liberty is what Americans value in our Constitutional government, which IS the moral order of our govenrment! Thank goodness we are not like Islam, under a theocratic government, that stones the adultress!!!

"What Children Don't Know"

"What children don't know, won't hurt them", is a common phrase here, in America. But, what adults don't know does hurt them.

When government is not forthcoming with information to the American people, either through power over the press, or elitist attitudes about policy making, then our "common interests" no longer exist, and we are not duty bound to continue in "the social contract" or we are called to reform the contract. Voting is just the beginning to changing what needs change.

A social contract was to be defined by "equality under law". The law is to protect the liberty of opinion, while limiting governmental oversight. Now, things seem reversed. We seem to be given pablum, because "what the children don't know, won't hurt them". And all the while, we are commended to protect the interest of the public's good. Peace at all costs looses much of what has been paid for in blood.

Our country was founded by those that believed that all were created equal and protected and provided for civil liberties.

Virtue is a relative term, when one faces evil. What is one to do? Submit? Resist? Fight? Surrender? Run? What is one's "duty"?

Kant says to do what you would want to become universal. But, universiality is still dependent on one's values, isn't it? And one's values are individually embraced. That is, unless there is a 'universalized agenda" that would undermine liberty of choosing one's values, or changing one's commitments as life requires.

My grand-daughter's "wisdom" is child-like. She believes that everyone wants the same thing that she does, so she will understand things in a childlike way. But, this is not true to reality. People want different things from life, and that should be allowed in free societies.

So, put away childish things and understand that all are not alike.

Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)

We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?

Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.

Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.

Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.

We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".

Against Rights?

I just recently read where the politically conservative are concerned over the Bill of Rights, in our Constitution. They seem to have a distaste for the "freedoms" that are written therein.

Where it concerns civil liberties, these believe that they must hold the ropes to a 'decent" and moral base, as understood in Scripture, otherwise our country will be doomed to suffer the judgment of God.

Conservatives of this stripe understand the "world" as a world where God superintends his "design and plan" upon others, even over the uncooperative. God does not rain on the just and the unjust, but "picks the chosen" those that are cooperative to bring in "His Kingdom". And the "Kingdom" is materialized in the way of their interpretive frame.

We all interpret our realities within our frames, this is normal mental health. The problem is when those in power deem anothers frame as "mentally ill" or mentally incompetant". Then the social structure of government has determined a cultural "norm" apart from a religious one. This happens under Communist Regimes where the religious are deemed the "mentally ill". Political activists are also shunned, as communism does not take kindly to dissention.

Something similar happens in Religious Regimes where those that disagree with their ideas of "dress, behavior and belief" are considered the "infidel", the "enemy", or worse. Those who maintain an exclusivist model of reality ostericize, shun, abuse or torment those who they deem to be outside their understanding of reality.

Both types of governing have an authroitarian way of maintaining the social order. This may make for "peace", but it does not allow diveristy of opinion, academic freedom, artistic expression or many other freedoms that we have in free societies.

So, why on earth are the conservatives hoping to reform the "Bill of Rights"?

Life or Liberty?

Happy July 4th!

Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.

Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.

These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.

Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".

Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".

Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.

Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!

The Atrocious Injustice of Jesus' Life

Jesus is known to the Christian community to be exemplary of "faith". Various affirmations of his life have defined the Christian community from the literalization of his death as an atoning sacrifice to an exempliary life lived in service to others.

I find that generally the upholding of Jesus life as an example, whether of faith or "duty" can be useful for social purposes. But, if one thinks about what justice should mean, his life was the epitome of injustice. Shouldn't men be interested in justice for the individual?

Jesus lived his life under obedience, first and foremost to "God". "God" decided for him what was to be done and how it was to be done. This is known as Jesus' "Passion". It was not Jesus' will, but God's that was of uptmost importance. Is martyrdom the necessary "duty" of the "faithful"? I think this is absurd and subverts the understanding of justice in a modern society, where justice is known to be for the individual's right to choose, and be free from such conforming and "unjust""standards".

Those who suggest that Jesus' life was one historical life among many that have changed the world, are more realistic and grounded. Theology has served the pusposes of the Church's self-interest. Nothing is wrong with self-preservation, but not at the expense of others, as this is the height of immoraility. People must be free to be informed and know what their life is to be committed to. And this is the "ideal" of justice in a free society.

Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King in Governmental Form

In last post, Jesus was understood as the "legislative branch" as he fulfilled the law, by doing the law. But, Jesus was also representative of the judicial branch as he interpreted the law against the Jewish religious leaders. He never denied being a Jew, as he even preached in the synagogue. He did not come to set up a "new religion or religious order". Jesus was a universalizer of the law in understanding the full intent and meaning of the law.

Not only was he the prophet and priest, but also, the King. He was understood to be God. The executive branch, the President, is not King, as his position is balance by the "others". Balance of power brings true humility as it understands its dependence on the "other" branch. In this sense, there is no sovereignty. Only the law in its defense of the Constitution (the President), it interpretation (the judiary) and its legislation and representation (Congress). Our form of government, in this sense, is the most "", philosophically.

As to sovereignty, this form of government protects individual rights, as this government believes in the universal of the individual, as equal before the law. Justice defends and protects the indivdual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, while Law is upheld by our government, sovereignty is understood in individual terms.

"Order" and "Rights" as Justice

Yesterday's blog entry was about the grounding of justice. I believe that "somehow" these two views, 'order" and "rights" are definitive of true justice. Today, I was thinking about justice and how "order and rights" defined "justice" as it involved the growth of our grandson.

My daughter called this afternoon to report on our grandchildren and their day at "pre-school". As she and I were discussing the children, I commented on how I thought that Drayton was acting with more confidence and I had heard him using consonant sounds more often. She had previously expressed concern over his not making consonant sounds And we have all been concerned over his delayed speech and this was one factor in deciding to put them in pre-school.

She disagreed with me and then started to compare him with another child in her husband's family, who is half as old. I cautioned her about making comparisons, as each child has such differences, and that true development or growth should be compared with his own "past".

I, then, started thinking about how this applies to "order" and justice. Order is structure, or universality. Whereas, much has been written on child development, most psychologists would agree that these universals cannot be so strigently understood and applied that there is little room for unique, diverse and individual children. Usually, the pediatrician depends on the parent's assessment of the child's behavior to determine if the child is acting "out of character" to determine if the child is not feeling well.

Justice is defined by law in the West. These are rules that society understands keeps "order". While "order" is society's "right", the individual also has a "right" of difference within that "order", just as Drayton's "growth" should be "gauged", measured, or evaluated within his own "past". So, true justice takes into account a person's context, present understanding, and personal maturity. All of these are considerations in our courts of law.

So, while a good and functioning society should maintain order, which is defined by the "rule of law". There is an allowance also, within good government that allows for "freedom" of individuality, expression, and conviction based upon the individual's growth. Good societies allow for this "wideness" of difference. And the wideness of difference is what human rights is all about, as it concerns the social structures that "order" life.

Philosophical Reality and Personal Reality

In the past, I have written about philosophical reality, using an open, closed or flat "universe". These philosophical distinctions form ideological "worlds" and understanding. These "worlds" are what are useful to help us in bringing a larger identity to a personal one.

While enlarging our personal identity to include a "world" is important, it is no less important to affirm, search and find one's personal identity, when the "former world" is challenged. This work is done in adolescence, and into the college years, and sometimes in the middle aged years, where cognition is challenged with information that doesn't "fit" one's particular familial "world" and social contexts.

I understand this search, struggle and eventual commitment as a development of "self" in understanding, identity formation and vocation. Research suggests that one's personal identity can be stymied through abuse, limiting the child's development beyond that point in time, inhibiting development. I wonder how these limitations affect the development of personal identity.

While philosophical questions answer the "big questions" about how life should be and why, it does not answer or address personhood. Personhood is personal boundary matinence that understands where one's commitments lie and why, which is value clarification. Personal identity is based on these important ponts of development. This is what education is about. Education allows for the individual child, young person or middle ager to formulate their own way of viewing life, from many perspectives, broadening the opportunities and enlarging one's capacity to engage a larger world.

Philosophical questions should not be answered by an intellectual, or spiritual elite, otherwise, personal identity ceases to exist and the person becomes an object of Statism, or "state interests". This happens in coercive, oppressive, and uniform political "systems". Our country does not view the individual in such ways.

Our country's Founding Fathers understood that the individual was created with certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We Americans, must not allow our freedoms to be subverted in the name of any "high sounding moral virtue", such as "the common good", "public interest", or "community welfare". These are terms that play on man's false sense of responsiblity for another, in sacrificing their own personal boundary, to the demise of all civil, moral or rational "order". The "civil, moral and rational order" was the underlying belief of our Founding Fathers belief in natural law. And natural law is the basis of our rule of law and the natural sciences. We undermine these to our own personal destruction, as well as enabling corruption within and without government which affects us all.

Moral Order or Individualism, Which Determines Social Ontology

The old question of nature versus nurture is being resurrected, of sorts, in coming to understand what makes for social ontology. Social ontology is the study of reality. This interests me and my husband immensely.

The division lies in how one understands how people come to develop, as well as how they come to think, and how they put it all together. The Quadralateral is sometimes useful for understanding different ways of approaching reality, but there are certainly other ways, as well.

The Quadralateral has four components; reason, experience, tradition, and text (texts are usually understood within a tradition's framework). All aspects of the Quadralateral can be viewed from an individual developmental view, or a social/contextual/cultural/traditional view.

The individual view is based on Enlightenment principles of reason and moral order, while the social view emphasizes social/cultural/tradition and political history view, which emphasizes the individual within context. Whether one believes in an innate nature or the importance and impact of nurture within the different social units of society, both are important aspects of "being" in the world and a development of understanding (hermenuetic) of "reality" in the world.

We cannot understand, or judge from our own perspectives, which apart from the difference of understanding the social contexts themselves, are also, individually understood, depending on one's personality, gifting, and "idiosyncresies".

I want to read and study further along this line of understanding, as it is interdisciplinary in nature and it would complement my husband's "coming to terms" with faith.

Theodicity, Salvation, and Free Will

I just read on another blog spot that this person was attempting to re-think his theology on two points
1.) there is no free will
2.) salvation collapses into theodicity

I may be misunderstanding him, but is seems to me, that if one works within a closed system, then one has to believe in free choice, otherwise how does anything happen at all.

Leaders whether in government or organizational structures, are responsible for the choices they make, as they set vision, determine purpose, et al...then, the conventional level moral development people are given "the good news", as in the theodicity problem is really a call to "sanctification"! Therefore, they are to practice the disciplines, the Sermon on the Mount and count it all joy, because as God is their eschalogical hope, they can be assured that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed ....

IMAGINE, the VICTIM (those who have limited choices, or are pre-determined by "leadership") are then given the "good news" of the redemption of sin...in the sweet by and by and in the meantime, they are to have Christ-like character!!! while those in leadership rest at ease in their imaginings....I imagine the Book of Hebrews would come in handy about now, too!! Then, tradition could benefit with those so sanctified, as well as enlarge the portals of scientism's knowledge....

Salvation is character, but character does not act arrogantly, immorally, or unethically. We do have problems in ethics concerning the choices set before us, in coming to understand and settle on what constitutes the greater good, or the highest value, or the ultimate end...But, there must not be determinism. No, choice is a matter of individual conscience, the moral order of accountability, and justice.

I do not believe in Calvinism, determinism ala scientism, even God's foreknowledge. No, I believe in a free and open universe, where anything can happen, because man isn't God and doesn't know everything, nor control everything...but I struggle with God's control, knowledge and intervention within history. We all see the facts and interpret them in faith...

Law and Order and the Purpose of the Modern State

It is so disturbing that Hamas is continuing to fire rockets at Israel. They are not a recognized state, and have caused much damage to Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Modern states maintain laws, which structure their governments and are markers of "order". This is a necessary structure-setting, as otherwise, there is not accountability and chaos happens. Hamas is not accountable to a state, as a state has not been granted to Palestine. Whether one agrees or not that this is unjust, the way in which Hamas is rectifying the situation is further breeding hostility, mistrust and hinders the cause of peace negotiations. This is where an international (transnational?) organization is necessary to bring order, but how does order look, when Palestine does not have any rights under law (as they are not a "state")?

I have come a long way in my thinking. Law is necessary for order, structure, which breeds an environment of flourishing for mankind. I am so thankful to leave in a free state!

Development of the Individual Within Society

When I used to believe that evangelical inductive study was "truth", I understood that "context was king". Context meant what the text meant within the culture, and language of the given frame of "orginal meaning". Of course the context was understood with different textual "helps". I understood that there was diversity within the Church and understood many of the arguments which brought about separation or understandings of difference.

But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.

Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".

Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.

Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.

This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).

Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.

Doing Unto Others and Ethical Choices

Choice is a value that makes us human. Humans have a choice because they have a mind, that can reason about difference in values and the choices that uphold those most important values. People choose what they do for different reasons. But, all humans choose what they value most, or think is most important in spectrum of choices. Reason, then, is an important human attribute to develop.

World religions have different ways of addressing the ethical, but the ethical is understood to define what is universal. In the Judeo/Christian tradition, the universal is the Golden Rule. In Kant's moral philosophy, it is the categorical imperative.

People usually agree about the universals, the "ideals". But, they diverge in how to decide to act in a real world that is not ideal. That is the quandary for all decisions in this life, whether the individual, group, or nation.

How do we resolve the dilemma to the questions of choice and the ideal in an imperfect world? Well, that really depends on how you view the world and the players in the world. Conservative Christians believe that God acts in the world. But, what this means differs. Some believe that God does miracles directly impacting the world, while others believe that God has given humans the mandate to change the world.

If we believe that the world needs change, whether one believes that it comes about directly from the hand of God or not, comes about by understanding the importance of the Golden Rule. How are we to apply that in our imperfect world? The Golden Rule cannot be implemented without choice, so government is a priority. Good government is made by people who are public servants. And the American government is the best means of choosing these public servants. These public servants are called to maintain the values of freedom for our people in religion, vocation, and lifestyle (within the bounaries of law).

Therefore, good government is the most important value to pursue, so that the moral order can be maintained, and people can live in peace. It is also most important so that individuals can make their choices in freedom.

The ideal values of religion are relativized to good governance in allowing choice in a real world.

Moral Order, The Freedom of Speech and The Challenge to Change

Yesterday's post was about first and foremost, the freedom of speech given to the individual in our American culture. This is an important virtue in our culture because it gives people "a voice" and it is foundational to our free access to "news", as well as an implement of social change.

Just because our press is a free one, does not mean that our press is a moral one. The freedom of our press means that it is not governmentally controlled and because it is not controlled by the government, the government is accountable. The press, in this sense, is a balance of power, because it can reveal certain "news" that would not be beneficial for a politician's reelection. This is a good thing, as it can be an instrument of educating the people to maintain "freedom".

While the press can be useful and is useful, for the most part, for maintaining accountability in government, the press is fed by the "free market" mentality. "Sin" sells and what sells brings prosperity. And profit and prosperity is what ends up defining what stories are going to be pursued. "The market" drives journalists, publishers, reporters, and the news media, in general to be the first to "get the story". But, our society is not so much dedicated to informing themselves, as in entertaining themselves. This has cheapened the media and its purpose of keeping government accountable and the people informed.

Not only is the press benefitting on the "sins" of its leaders and poplace, but the media feeds the public with their own bias. Editorials do not belong in the headlines, but this, in my opinion, is what it has become. Everyone that cares enough to inform themselves, understands that there are liberal and conservative news coverage. And it becomes the public's responsibilty to flip the channels and/or buy two newpapers, if they want both sides to the story. Is there not a way to report a story without bias? I thought this was traditionally understood to be what the news media was about, giving unbiased news to inform the public. Now, I fear that the news media has another agenda, it own political agenda. Instead of educating the poplace, the media politicizes the news and campaigns for their candidate. We become a divided people that are ill-informed about the real issues, because we are focused on the politcalization of the media and the news, itself.

This is the downfall of a "free people", a disregard and a lack of appreciation of freedom. Freedom is not won without a costs and the costs are personal, as well as societal. The costs are our moral responsiblity. Our moral order demands that our freedom of speech be directed in ways that are edifying to our poplace and not just entertaining. The challenge to change might be a sacrificial one, as far as prosperity, but it just might make a difference to our society. Besides, writers are known to be creative and they can use their creativity to write note-worthy stories in an entertaining way to woo us off of pablum, so that we can be an informed and educated people. Without this change, our lost opportunity will be the furtherance of our moral demise. And our moral demise will inevitably limit our freedom in the future. There is nothing like a lack of informatin to enslave. But, our enslavement will be one chosen by default, unless the press changes and takes their responsibility seriously.

Freedom of Speech, Moral Order and the Challenge to Change

Our Constitution guaruntees each American the right to the freedom of speech. We experience our freedom with the diverse views that are represented in our news media and positions of power. While most choose to identify with their particular "color" of view, some choose to go across the borders of conformity to wisely discern how to challenge the prevailing view, so that it can be expanded. Do we do this as private citizens? Do we choose to watch, or buy something that is antithetical to our view, so that we can really learn what the issues are really about, instead of stereotyping and dismissing the other side of the story.

When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.

We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.